I got up this morning to see an email from Zoneliving.com stating that "Arizona State Researchers find Zone is superior to Atkins for energy, healthy bones, and cholesterol levels." and linking to an article that is currently on the front page of Zoneliving. Directly url here:

http://www.zoneliving.com/tabid/175...fault.aspx

Well I couldn't help myself, you'll see my extended comment on the article there, at the time of writing it's the first and only comment.

In summary, the article is a shocking abuse of the facts and an affront to genuine scientific study. I find it a disgrace that it's being used to promote the Zone diet.

Colin,
Well, I read the article, and then I really READ the article. I agree with your position.

It is an unfortunate state that we live in. The Zone is a great plan, a great way of life. It totally makes sense. Unfortunately, the only way to market it is to write "tabloid-type" articles. I bet that most people who read that will unknowlingly agree with the statements in the article and be drawn to the Zone.

It's interesting to see that the other 3 comments are also scathing of the article too.

My two cents. does anyone know who actually wrote the article that you're discussing? I read it but I'm unsure. It has a dateline of Dec 6, Mesa, AZ, but no real indication of the author. I'm surprised by the extent of the criticism in some of the comments posted on the page after the article, in regard to the actual studies referred to in the article. The article appears to me to be the author's own summary and interpretation, and the comments appear somewhat reactionary, IMO (I venture to say over reaction). I'd be curious to read the actual published studies referenced in the article, to gain a better understanding. I'm familiar with the Atkins diet, though I've never chosen to eat according to it's principles.

The article was published by the Arizona State University. I have a link which takes you to the article. At the bottom of the page is a contact person, whom I believe to be the author of the article (but I am not sure of that). As far as I can see, there is mention of several studies published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and the Journal of the American Dietetic Association (and another journal that I can't recall), but no direct link to these journal articles.

All the research was supported by a grant from the Inflammation Research Foundation. Isn't that Barry Sears' non-profit organization?



http://www.poly.asu.edu/news/2007/12/06/

I'm assuming Cranberry's input on where the article originated is probably on target, even though the actual author is a guess, and that the article was indeed not written by Zone Labs. I'm very surprised at the degree of negative comment being directed at Zone Labs for having made the article known to their Zone Living members. It's quite a stretch to charatcerize that act as the type of negative situation being portrayed in the comments posted both here and on the page below the article.

[quote]Posted By Sue on 12/13/2007 6:50 AM

I'm assuming Cranberry's input on where the article originated is probably on target, even though the actual author is a guess, and that the article was indeed not written by Zone Labs. I'm very surprised at the degree of negative comment being directed at Zone Labs for having made the article known to their Zone Living members. It's quite a stretch to charatcerize that act as the type of negative situation being portrayed in the comments posted both here and on the page below the article.[/quote]

Sue--I don't think that anyone here has stated that they believed Zone Labs had written the article. I am assuming that you did read the article, based on your previous post (which I didn't quote here). There are some technical inconsistencies in the article, and this type of article should have been proofed prior to being posted on the website.

Also, another thing that bothers me is that the studies were funded by grants from the Inflammation Research Foundation. That is no different than a drug company funding their own studys to promote a new drug.

I think the study(s) would carry more clout if an independent group had funded the research.

> the studies were funded by grants from the Inflammation Research Foundation

If that's the case, that explains the obvious bias in the article.

Sue, don't you agree that the article is at best simply shoddy journalism, or at worst, obviously corrupt science?

I wouldn't use either of those phrases. Refer to my previous post in this thread of 12/13/2007 for my take on this.

Personally, I would not agree that this was corrupt science. The article was NOT well-written, and had a bunch of un-true facts regarding Atkins.

I bothers me a bit that the research was funded by the IRF, and I think that it adds a bit of bias to the article.

However, I DO believe in the science behind the Zone, and it has made a big difference in many lives, mine included.

wow! I haven't read the article but I am heartily encouraged to see that people can openly criticize the way the Zone is marketed right here on this site! Bravo! this is group I can live with.

Well, it is a free country! LOL!

I think that if the moderators don't like what we say, they probably have the power to delete a post. But, my guess is that more people will participate on controversial issues, and if that draws them to this site, that is great for them.